Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[wardenclyffe]

Unfortunately, I chose my answer in trial 2 absolutely not due to a lucky guess.

How about the answer in trial number 3? Lucky guess or 100% wrong?

Ward

 

[wardenclyffe]

However, when this was first brought to my attention after the test and by bookitty here in this Forum, I could not consciously recall having noticed a leg brace or arm scar and knew that if I had, I would not have consciously known to connect this to it being the target.

Well this is an improvement. She now confesses that she was told after the test about #24 by IIG. Of course she kept it completely quiet until bookitty brought it up here. Then she was outraged. Outraged because it happened or because we found out?

Ward

 

[tsig]

.

I was attempting to practice, ie. demonstrate, a skill, and was basing my answer on the outcome of that. A guess would be if I was not having any clear impressions and had to guess. Do you see the difference?

Skills have demonstrated results. Your skill was a lot less usefull than the machine.

 

[Tricky]

One post that started a general derail and several responses to that post were moved to the Moderated general discussion thread. Several other posts that were responses, but would not have been approved for the moderated thread were deleted. Please stay on topic, and even though this thread is NOT moderated, please stay civil, and that includes changing quotes in an insulting way.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Furcifer]

One post that started a general derail and several responses to that post were moved to the Moderated general discussion thread. Several other posts that were responses, but would not have been approved for the moderated thread were deleted. Please stay on topic, and even though this thread is moderated, please stay civil, and that includes changing quotes in an insulting way.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

What exactly does that mean? I thought any moderated threads had to be identified as such.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, and if the IIG committed a protocol violation in any subtest that adversely effected the chance of overall success then it has materially breached the contract. This is so regardless of how successful or not the other subtests were. Obviously there has to be some material evidence of a breach to credibly claim a breach. “My spirit guide told me they cheated“ isn’t going to work.

I thought I had covered this already. Lawsuits need damages. No damages means no lawsuit. If you stop early, the damages are consideration for fulfilling the contract or at least her expenses. If you don't stop early, then if she fails another trial, she stood no chance of winning anyway, so there are no damages.

I'm not going to explain this again.

So why did the IIG test continue when Party B(londie) failed the first trial?

Because the contract specifically called for three trials with the evaluation of the results coming after the three trials were over.

If Party A breaches the contract and invalidates the first trial then Party B stood no chance of successfully executing the contract regardless of whether the chance of successfully attempting the other two tests existed or not.

That's correct. So by letting the contract play out to the end, the IIG gives themselves the opportunity for the claimant to do something (in this case, not do something) that would result in them not being obligated to render consideration ("pay" her, so speak).

The requirement and purpose of the overall test is to successfully complete it not fully complete it. Any breach by A (in any trail) completely removes any chance of B being able to successfully complete the overall test. That's pretty material.

You're cute when you use words you don't understand. A material breach by definition means the aggrieved party can compel performance or collect damages. In the link I provided they give the case of a contractor installing red pipes instead of blue pipes in a house. It was a literal part of the contract. The contractor installed the wrong color pipes. Breach? Yes. Material? No, because there were no damages. The pipes were inside the walls, so aesthetics wasn't an issue. The color had no effect on how well the pipes worked or how long they lasted.

The point here is that stopping early by definition prevents the other party from completing the contract. If it turns out the IIG was wrong about stopping the test, then the claimant can sue for performance (retest) or damages (reimbursement for expenses). If, however, the IIG allows the claimant to continue on with the test and the claimant legitimately fails another trial, how can she sue for a retest or damages? The act of failing one legitimate trial means she didn't meet her obligations.

Instead of working so hard to try to argue against this point, spend your effort trying to understand it.

 

[Furcifer]

That's correct. So by letting the contract play out to the end, the IIG gives themselves the opportunity for the claimant to do something (in this case, not do something) that would result in them not being obligated to render consideration ("pay" her, so speak).

Mitigate.

 

[ynot]

I thought I had covered this already. Lawsuits need damages. No damages means no lawsuit. If you stop early, the damages are consideration for fulfilling the contract or at least her expenses. If you don't stop early, then if she fails another trial, she stood no chance of winning anyway, so there are no damages.

I'm not going to explain this again.

I live a long way from USA and I don’t pretend to know USA law. I would have thought however that any protocol/contract violation that prevented successfully completing the overall test would have been grounds for a retest. The test that contained the breach prevented winning the overall test regardless of whether or not the other test were completed or successful. Even if the other tests were completed successfully there was no chance of winning. Perhaps someone else who understands USA law might like to comment?

Because the contract specifically called for three trials with the evaluation of the results coming after the three trials were over.

Good reason why it was done but I’m questioning if it was a good protocol in a test that required 100% success.

That's correct. So by letting the contract play out to the end, the IIG gives themselves the opportunity for the claimant to do something (in this case, not do something) that would result in them not being obligated to render consideration ("pay" her, so speak).

You agree then you disagree? So IIG can commit any amount of protocol/contract violations that prevent the successful completion of the overall test, but as long as Blondie fails in any test that doesn’t contain a violation, these violations are then completely forgiven and can‘t be used as grounds for a retest?

You're cute when you use words you don't understand. A material breach by definition means the aggrieved party can compel performance or collect damages. In the link I provided they give the case of a contractor installing red pipes instead of blue pipes in a house. It was a literal part of the contract. The contractor installed the wrong color pipes. Breach? Yes. Material? No, because there were no damages. The pipes were inside the walls, so aesthetics wasn't an issue. The color had no effect on how well the pipes worked or how long they lasted.

A protocol/contract breach that prevented thesuccessful completion of the overall test means the “pipes didn’t work”.

The point here is that stopping early by definition prevents the other party from completing the contract. If it turns out the IIG was wrong about stopping the test, then the claimant can sue for performance (retest) or damages (reimbursement for expenses). If, however, the IIG allows the claimant to continue on with the test and the claimant legitimately fails another trial, how can she sue for a retest or damages? The act of failing one legitimate trial means she didn't meet her obligations.

The completion of all subtests was only required because the protocol/contract said it was. It wasn’t required to establish overall 100% success or not. Surely it would be far more important to be able to successfully complete the overall test than merely complete it.

Instead of working so hard to try to argue against this point, spend your effort trying to understand it.

Trying but not prepared to understand/learn merely by rote.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I live a long way from USA and I don’t pretend to know USA law. I would have thought however that any protocol/contract violation that prevented successfully completing the overall test would have been grounds for a retest.

If she fails another trial, then she also breached the contract and prevented herself from fully executing the contract. It can be argued that both parties have a duty to mitigate the damages, which is to say they have a duty to reasonable steps to keep the losses at a minimum.

You agree then you disagree? So IIG can commit any amount of protocol/contract violations that prevent the successful completion of the overall test, but as long as Blondie fails in any test that doesn’t contain a violation, these violations are then completely forgiven and can‘t be used as grounds for a retest?

Essentially, yes, because the claimant is also committing a breach entirely of her own accord (her fault). Here's the very simple question that needs to be asked: If the court remedies the breach by the IIG by forcing another trial, could the claimant still have an opportunity to successfully execute the contract? The answer is no, because she failed a trial. So what's the point?

If they stop the test, what is the answer? It's yes, so they might order specific performance or financial damages.

A protocol/contract breach that prevented the overall successful completion of the overall test means the “pipes didn’t work”.

You're wrong, and it proves that you have not bothered to read the links given. If the contract called for copper pipes and instead iron pipes were installed, that's a material breach because copper pipes last much longer than iron pipes. Iron pipes work. They will work for many years.

Trying but not prepared to understand/learn merely by rote.

I am not prepared to give you a college level introduction to business law. And, unfortunately, a lot of law is a matter of rote learning. Much of the basis is common law, which has a deep history.

In the USA you have Uniform Commercial Code, which deals with what we've been discussing. You should also read up on basic contract law and specific performance.

I've read and studied this stuff. It's pretty clear you haven't (the laws in our two countries are probably very similar because the roots are in English common law). When your depth of knowledge on the subject meets mine, we can discuss this intelligently. Until then all I can do is explain my understanding. I am not going to write a textbook for you.

However, if you just want to "feel" like I'm right, consider the following example. Suppose I need three turkeys to be deep fried for my event. It has to be three or the event is a failure. I agree to supply three deep fryers of a certain minimum size, and you agree to supply the turkeys and cook them properly.

Scenario A - You try to put a turkey in Fryer #1. None fit. I send you home because I need three turkeys, not two. Later you learn that Fryer #1 was too small, which was my fault. You have the right to sue to make you whole again (reimbursing you for your turkeys and time).

Scenario B - You try to put a turkey in Fryer #1. None fit. You try Fryer #2. Same thing. You try Fryer #3, and one turkey fits. I refuse to pay you. Later you learn that Fryer #1 was too small, which was my fault. Fryer #2 was the right minimum size, but your turkeys were too big. Can you sue me? No, because we know that you could not have held up your end of the bargain. I can't sue you either, because even if you had brought the right turkeys, my actions would have prevented you from executing your end of the bargain. The contract is thus waived.

I am not going to discuss the stopping early strategy with you any further unless you can come up with some case law to show me that I'm wrong. In that case I will humbly stand corrected.

 

[ynot]

If she fails another trial, then she also breached the contract and prevented herself from fully executing the contract. It can be argued that both parties have a duty to mitigate the damages, which is to say they have a duty to reasonable steps to keep the losses at a minimum.

Essentially, yes, because the claimant is also committing a breach entirely of her own accord (her fault). Here's the very simple question that needs to be asked: If the court remedies the breach by the IIG by forcing another trial, could the claimant still have an opportunity to successfully execute the contract? The answer is no, because she failed a trial. So what's the point?

If they stop the test, what is the answer? It's yes, so they might order specific performance or financial damages.

You're wrong, and it proves that you have not bothered to read the links given. If the contract called for copper pipes and instead iron pipes were installed, that's a material breach because copper pipes last much longer than iron pipes. Iron pipes work. They will work for many years.

I am not prepared to give you a college level introduction to business law. And, unfortunately, a lot of law is a matter of rote learning. Much of the basis is common law, which has a deep history.

In the USA you have Uniform Commercial Code, which deals with what we've been discussing. You should also read up on basic contract law and specific performance.

I've read and studied this stuff. It's pretty clear you haven't (the laws in our two countries are probably very similar because the roots are in English common law). When your depth of knowledge on the subject meets mine, we can discuss this intelligently. Until then all I can do is explain my understanding. I am not going to write a textbook for you.

However, if you just want to "feel" like I'm right, consider the following example. Suppose I need three turkeys to be deep fried for my event. It has to be three or the event is a failure. I agree to supply three deep fryers of a certain minimum size, and you agree to supply the turkeys and cook them properly.

Scenario A - You try to put a turkey in Fryer #1. None fit. I send you home because I need three turkeys, not two. Later you learn that Fryer #1 was too small, which was my fault. You have the right to sue to make you whole again (reimbursing you for your turkeys and time).

Scenario B - You try to put a turkey in Fryer #1. None fit. You try Fryer #2. Same thing. You try Fryer #3, and one turkey fits. I refuse to pay you. Later you learn that Fryer #1 was too small, which was my fault. Fryer #2 was the right minimum size, but your turkeys were too big. Can you sue me? No, because we know that you could not have held up your end of the bargain. I can't sue you either, because even if you had brought the right turkeys, my actions would have prevented you from executing your end of the bargain. The contract is thus waived.

I am not going to discuss the stopping early strategy with you any further unless you can come up with some case law to show me that I'm wrong. In that case I will humbly stand corrected.

I have no problem understanding that either party not fully completing the three tests would be a breach of protocol because the protocol required it.

I do have a problem however understanding that a failure to achieve 100% success is a breach of protocol. A success failure isn’t a completion failure per se.

As legal types may not frequent this section of the forum very often I have asked for an independent opionion regarding your legal claims in another section. Hopefully I will get some reply. Are you a lawyer or legal expert?

ETA - I may be happy “think” you are right if what you say “sounded” more right to me.

 

[Uncayimmy]

As legal types may not frequent this section of the forum very often I have asked for an independent opionion regarding your legal claims in another section. Hopefully I will get some reply. Are you a lawyer or legal expert?

I majored in business/accounting in college. I'm a business owner, and my clients are businesses. Many of them are in real estate and finance, so I'm pretty familiar with how that works (lots of contract issues).

I read up on law just for fun (I like reading court decisions). My wife works at a university and sometimes brings home discontinued textbooks. This summer she brought home a business law book, which I read cover to cover (didn't really learn anything new).

I'm also a musician and creator of intellectual property, so I've read several books on the intricacies of the music business as well as copyright and trademark law.

Nobody pays me for my legal opinion, but I do give it. And it's not based on what I think it should be but rather on what I understand it to be.

You?

 

[ynot]

I majored in business/accounting in college. I'm a business owner, and my clients are businesses. Many of them are in real estate and finance, so I'm pretty familiar with how that works (lots of contract issues).

I read up on law just for fun (I like reading court decisions). My wife works at a university and sometimes brings home discontinued textbooks. This summer she brought home a business law book, which I read cover to cover (didn't really learn anything new).

I'm also a musician and creator of intellectual property, so I've read several books on the intricacies of the music business as well as copyright and trademark law.

Nobody pays me for my legal opinion, but I do give it. And it's not based on what I think it should be but rather on what I understand it to be.

You?

I’m also a business owner and my clients are also business owners. I have some experience in and knowledge of certain NZ legal matters (but no real education). If you call a drummer a musician then I’m also a musician and also a creator of intellectual property. I would expect that what you say regarding what we are discussing is more likely to correct than my difficulty in understanding and accepting it.

 

[Tricky]

One post that started a general derail and several responses to that post were moved to the Moderated general discussion thread. Several other posts that were responses, but would not have been approved for the moderated thread were deleted. Please stay on topic, and even though this thread is moderated, please stay civil, and that includes changing quotes in an insulting way.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

What exactly does that mean? I thought any moderated threads had to be identified as such.

No, that was one of my frequent mistakes. I mean't to say "even though this thread is NOT moderated". This thread is not, at this time, moderated.

 

[Furcifer]

No, that was a mistake. This thread is not, at this time, moderated.

Gotcha. On both accounts.

 

[wardenclyffe]

She's suspended for a week.

 

[chran]

Anita sure is purdy

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've read and studied this stuff. It's pretty clear you haven't (the laws in our two countries are probably very similar because the roots are in English common law). When your depth of knowledge on the subject meets mine, we can discuss this intelligently. Until then all I can do is explain my understanding. I am not going to write a textbook for you.

Arguing from authority now?
As you've acknowledged, you're not a lawyer. I'm going to go ahead and let the people in this thread know that your legal interpretation of the situation is bullox. You're welcome to continue with your pontification, but anyone else who's reading this? Ignore UY's legal analysis. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Arguing from authority now?
As you've acknowledged, you're not a lawyer. I'm going to go ahead and let the people in this thread know that your legal interpretation of the situation is bullox. You're welcome to continue with your pontification, but anyone else who's reading this? Ignore UY's legal analysis. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Actually, no, I'm not arguing from authority. Law is always a matter of opinion. That's why we have various levels of courts including appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. Rarely are decisions at the Supreme Court level unanimous. Hell, even when justices dissent, they sometimes dissent for different reasons. The best educated and most experienced in the field disagree on a daily basis.

Understanding law requires learning not only the written laws but the history of court decisions throughout literally centuries. To know how your case is going to be resolved involves knowing how similar cases in the past were settled. It's a matter of trying to break it down into fundamental principles, which can be a matter of interpretation. Read up on common law to see what I mean.

As I said, I'm not lawyer, but I know a lot more than the average layman. When I find myself arguing with someone who does not use the correct terminology and who wants to argue from the position of what they think is "fair" rather than what they know courts have actually done, we can't discuss it intelligently. When I provide links for background information and they are ignored, then I reach the point where I no longer want to discuss it.

I said flat out that if someone can show me decisions about similar cases, I'd be more than happy to stand corrected.

In this case nobody is arguing that if they stop the test early by mistake (say a protocol violation by the IIG), the claimant absolutely has standing for a lawsuit. The only dispute is if the IIG lets the claimant attempt all three trials and she fails one legitimately, would she have standing for a lawsuit if the IIG had made a mistake in another trial. I make a compelling argument that she would not. Therefore, don't stop the test early.

 

[AvalonXQ]

As I said, I'm not lawyer, but I know a lot more than the average layman.

Understood -- you're not a lawyer, but a non-lawyer trying to make a legal analysis.
As long as everyone who reads it is clear on that, they can take it for whatever they think it's worth.

 

[biomorph]

Understood -- you're not a lawyer, but a non-lawyer trying to make a legal analysis.
As long as everyone who reads it is clear on that, they can take it for whatever they think it's worth.

the argument from (lack of) authority is irrelevant.

Either the contract stands up or it doesn't.

Failure to deliver either way on the contract is hardly arguable, unlike for instance arguing over a quality of the actual contracted goods or services, once delivered.